Hawking's blunder on black holes shows danger of listening to scientists!

[level.eleven]

....word salad....

You gave us links to extreme right wing denialist blogs, the Heritage Foundation, the Canadian Alex Jones, and the freaking John Birch Society. I think we are operating on different planes.

Read these. They are all sourced.

Why the Mail on Sunday was wrong to claim global warming has stopped | Environment | theguardian.com

RealClimate: Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half

'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming: Arctic warming fast -- ScienceDaily

Stick to science.

One interesting point of the word salad...I bet you believe in carbon dating. Are you a young earther?

 

[printcraft]

'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming: Arctic warming fast -- ScienceDaily
Stick to science.

Observational data on which climate records are based cover only 84 per cent of the planet -- with Polar regions and parts of Africa largely excluded.

So, our previous predictions were based entirely on data that was not complete so we pretty much were just speculating on what the actual data might have been then put that into our models......... oops..... well.....

Now Dr Kevin Cowtan, a computational scientist at the University of York, and Robert Way, a cryosphere specialist and PhD student at the University of Ottawa, have reconstructed the 'missing' global temperatures using a combination of observations from satellites and surface data from weather stations and ships on the peripheries of the unsampled regions.

Now, we have "reconstructed" this missing data using a "combination" of other sources and we think we have this **** figured out this time. Presto..... see...... global warming for sure.... and man is definitely the cause of it.
It's science *****, don't fight it.

 

[level.eleven]

So, our previous predictions were based entirely on data that was not complete so we pretty much were just speculating on what the actual data might have been then put that into our models......... oops..... well.....



Now, we have "reconstructed" this missing data using a "combination" of other sources and we think we have this **** figured out this time. Presto..... see...... global warming for sure.... and man is definitely the cause of it.
It's science *****, don't fight it.

Your inability to understand the totality of data is astounding. You do realize we are talking about 2% of a system, correct? Stick to posting memes about Al Gore. It best suits you abilities.

 

[printcraft]

Your inability to understand the totality of data is astounding. You do realize we are talking about 2% of a system, correct? Stick to posting memes about Al Gore. It best suits you abilities.

 

[level.eleven]

printwasburned.jpg

You did make me laugh when I saw "10 guy" in the hemp thread.

 

[printcraft]

You did make me laugh when I saw "10 guy" in the hemp thread.

I'm here to help.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I'm here to help.

Better watch it Printcraft. You know you never win when you argue about religious beliefs.

 

[level.eleven]

Better watch it Printcraft. You know you never win when you argue about religious beliefs.

No one is talking about religion. There is no diety. There isn't any worship, prayer, or infallible holy books.

We are talking about science.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[eric001]

And one quick thought on CO2, since it has a "greenhouse effect" by reflecting sunlight back towards the earth, would it not also have the same effect of reflecting sunlight away from the earth? If a given amount of sunlight is reflected isotropically from a given amount of CO2, as in a scientific experiment, light is reflected at all angles, ok so if there is more CO2 then one could say more sunlight reflects towards the earth, but then would also have to say more sunlight is reflected away from the earth, since the molecule is not a blanket, aligned one way and only reflecting light back towards earth. This must be some more of the right wing extremism called thought.

Actually, the greenhouse effect has almost nothing to do with reflecting or absorbing sunlight itself. Basically, when sunlight hits the Earth's surface, it is either reflected back toward space or absorbed. When it is absorbed, the byproduct of that process is infrared radiation--heat. That is why standing in the sunlight gives you a warm feeling on your skin. CO2 in the atmosphere is transparent to sunlight, but does absorb infrared radiation. It doesn't reflect that wavelength back so much as trap it in the CO2 itself, and later it is spread through the atmosphere and back toward the ground by convection, conduction, or radiation as with any other energy transfer. If any/all of this sounds Greek to you, I did a quick search and found the following video that might help:

Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2 - YouTube

 

[CathyInBlue]

But the power of CO2 to absorb IR radiation pales in comparison to water vapour. On top of that, realize that there's about 28x as much water vapour as CO2 in the atmosphere and you have a curious case of the global warming tale wagging the greenhouse effect dog. Why all the hullabaloo over CO2 when H2O does so much more to warm the atmosphere. Of course, modern industrialized society doesn't add nearly as much H2O to the atmosphere as it does CO2, so if H2O were treated as the climate change boogeyman, there would not be nearly so easy a chain by which to link industrial activity to global warming, and thereby to craft a luddite rope with which to hang modern society in favour of third world cesspools.

 

[zippy23]

Actually, the greenhouse effect has almost nothing to do with reflecting or absorbing sunlight itself. Basically, when sunlight hits the Earth's surface, it is either reflected back toward space or absorbed. When it is absorbed, the byproduct of that process is infrared radiation--heat. That is why standing in the sunlight gives you a warm feeling on your skin. CO2 in the atmosphere is transparent to sunlight, but does absorb infrared radiation. It doesn't reflect that wavelength back so much as trap it in the CO2 itself, and later it is spread through the atmosphere and back toward the ground by convection, conduction, or radiation as with any other energy transfer. If any/all of this sounds Greek to you, I did a quick search and found the following video that might help:

ACTUALLY, NASA's own scientist call CO2 and NO the "two most efficient COOLANTS in our atmosphere", they reflect IR radiation BACK INTO SPACE, again this is from NASA.

Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

These guys are showing how our atmosphere reflects radiation from the sun BACK INTO SPACE, Here is your quote since you prolly wont read the article from nasa's own website btw...."Infrared radiation from CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space."

I love how this article deals with your claim of IR radiation and how its NASA's own scientists and website showing you they are coolants and radiating this energy from the sun back into space, which is what my initial "quick thought" was all about!! Really nice jab about sounding Greek to me, now it looks as though you have egg on your face, as your own liberal organization just made your point flat out wrong. Sorry. If that article sounds Greek to you, i'll be happy to translate. Sounding smart isnt the same as being smart. Your "Greek" was just a bit off.

 

[zippy23]

When Al Gore and Ted Danson are your spokesman for "science," then my goodness you have got to be a seriously crazy person to believe in what they are pushing, especially as they fly around the world in the most polluting kind of transportation, while heating their mansion homes and telling you to turn your thermostat down cuz you are killing the planet. Will science, logic, your own scientists admitting they are wrong, your own spokesmen being proven wrong, other scientists now predicting cooling, or any other type of information that proves your stance wrong on global warming change your mind? And we are called extreme!!!!!!!

 

[poptab]

No one is talking about religion. There is no diety. There isn't any worship, prayer, or infallible holy books.

We are talking about science.

Do you understand the difference?

Make a concrete prediction with this data.

 

[zippy23]

Science is their diety, science is their religion, science is their holy book, the difference is their holy book, their science, their "truth", changes DAILY. To put your full faith into something that changes all the time, from fact to failure, that is extreme, to believe a book one day, then have that author write another book a year later that "updates" those "facts", or another author prove that guy wrong, to believe in that stuff as 100% truth is beyond extreme. Dont get me wrong, science is the vessel that has carried us to a great life, and sadly it is used, especially in the gov't arena, for policy that benefits one group and hurts another. That is not "science", that is political science. 2+2=4, but if someone told you every next day that the answer actually is different from what "they thought the knew", then there is obviously a problem with that "science."

 

[actaeon277]

Anti-oxidants. OOps don't take them.
Vitamins. Oops, dangerous in concentrations often offered.
Don't get too much calcium. Take more calcium.
Nuclear winter. Nuclear greenhouse.
We'll run out of gas. Maybe not.
Electron theory. Hole theory.
Canals on Mars. Nope, no canals.
Phrenology. Nope.
The static universe (by Einstein himself). Nope.


Science is ever evolving. Scientist do not become wed to their theories, at least they shouldn't.

 

[sittydown]

I guess you guys should slide over to the reloading forum and tell those people that they're fools to believe all that ballistic and propellent chemistry data that they're reading in those reloading manuals, I mean how do they know that any of THAT is "settled science". Man, those guys have no idea about the forces they're messing with. Good lord, I'm gonna look through my own manuals to make sure that none of the little footnotes have the name "Gore". Even if the name is "Reginald Gore" I'm still throwing it out; might be Al's cousin or something.

I was going to attempt a reply...but I have no idea what your point is?

I'm not questioning data sets, and I'm not challenging "settled science" unless we are defining it differently.

Why is it so hard to admit that a theory could be wrong? I'm not even saying it IS wrong, just that it could be!

 

[IndyDave1776]

Really? How about gravity? Do you believe in Newton's "opinion" on gravity, or was it all just a malicious attack on the apple industry?



Again, I give you gravity. If you ever see something fall upwards, I will stand corrected.




The truly wise are, indeed, those who realize that they don't know very much. But somehow I don't think that's what you're gettin' at.

I would say that a more reasonable example than Newton's direct an unchanging observations would be global warming. Forty years ago, the big fear was that human activity was going to induce a new ice age. Following that, presumably inspired by the failure of glaciers to appear on the horizon, came Global Warming. When that proved, even with dishonest books and faulty methods, untenable, then the same line of thought morphed into Climate Change which seems to work out to any time the weather is different from one day to the next, it is the fault of human activity, never mind that the same things have been happening throughout history even when man lacked the influence over nature to do any more than take shelter and use a fire to keep warm in the winter. I would have much more trust in the science of generations past than the politicized pseudo-science which is being presented as holy writ today.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I guess you guys should slide over to the reloading forum and tell those people that they're fools to believe all that ballistic and propellent chemistry data that they're reading in those reloading manuals, I mean how do they know that any of THAT is "settled science". Man, those guys have no idea about the forces they're messing with. Good lord, I'm gonna look through my own manuals to make sure that none of the little footnotes have the name "Gore". Even if the name is "Reginald Gore" I'm still throwing it out; might be Al's cousin or something.

Anyone who knows jack sh*t about science understands that the scientific method demands that the hypothesis be tested in a manner which is reproducible such that the experiment can be repeated and tested. You can follow the same data from the reloading manuals and get the same results every time unless YOU screw something up. The pseudo-science which is being used to drive public policy cannot be tested and certainly does not allow for experiments which can be repeated. By contrast, historical evidence that these same variations in climate have been happening cyclically throughout world history are arbitrarily rejected regardless of the fact that they did in fact happen. By contrast, you can test Newtonian physics by tossing an apple in the air and watching it come back down--every damned time you try it.

 

[printcraft]

You need look no further for direct and convincing evidence that this is all horse**** than from the language
of the climategate scientists themselves. For a DECADE we heard all about GLOBAL WARMING.

Now, since the fraud was exposed they have almost universally changed the mantra to GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.
That covers everything, cooling, warming, snow storms, tornados, hurricanes, typhoon, earthquakes (yes the claim has been made), floods, drought. Hell, probably sharknados as well.
What the solution for all these "problems"? A tax.
It's ok, keep doing it, just pay the right people the sin tax and it magically saves the planet.
It is a hoax of epic proportions to steal trillions of dollars.

 

[avboiler11]

I personally think that its obvious that "climate" is "changing". I also think it is irrefutable that human activity has an impact on the environment, to include weather and climate, on a micro and macro scale.

The question, to me, is not if humans are causing "climate change" (I believe we are) but in what ways and to what degree is human activity contributing to Mother Earth's natural changes that have been observed in the geologic and written record across eons and even the last few centuries.

A single volcanic eruption is going to put WAY more CO2 and particulate matter into the atmosphere than YEARS of human emissions.